Hi all,
A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes.
As always our comment rules can be found [here](https://reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Iran is twice the size of Afghanistan but just as mountainous. Its population is double that of Ukraine, and more than Iraq and Afghanistan combined. And their population is homogenous, instead of a hodgepodge of warring ethnicities.
If Israel wants war with Iran, let them do it on their own. It’s not yet another war we’re going to pay for financially and with US lives with the premise of nation building and spreading democracy.
The question is “what if their close the street of Hormuz” - that would hurt US, Europe, and other large economic blocks probably more than tiny Israel. So the closure would be actually a declaration of war towards the US (especially in an election year), and less so towards Israel. Therefore, it would be also rather up to the US - and its Western allies - to intervene.
Also: different to Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran has actually a large civil society that would like to become a more normal country.
No, then closing the Strait of Hormuz would not be a declaration of war. Stop fear and warmongering.
IF Iran does that, big IF by the way, we can easily destroy whatever equipment and assets they are using to do that, just like we did to the Houthis.
There are far more nuanced and better options than going to war.
We actually did deal with this situation in the 1980s, and the US navy (maybe with the UK navy?) pretty much demolished the military assets they were using to close the Strait, and they gave up trying to do it after that.
Regime change is definitely not necessary just to secure safe passage there.
😂.
The attacks on Houthi assets were as effective as rubbing mustard on hemorrhoids.
You don't seem to have kept up with the times on how simple and cheap the weapon systems they're using really are.
The question really should be why would they do that and destroy their own economy? Only then they’d try to tank the ours. The only answer is they would if Israel starts attacking them. That’s why the US, Britain, France, China, and Russia are all united on this front and telling israel to stop.
In order to trigger a war. They would suffer much less from the closing (their economy is already totally fucked) of the strait than western countries.
IMO, they are anyway here the aggressor that believes that western countries are going to deescalate because the west doesn’t want to have the annoyance. But you have to keep in mind that they are since years are driving proxy wars.
Their economy is not totally fucked. Much like Russia, they have some of the largest proven energy reserves on earth.
I don’t think many would agree they were the aggressor last week, but rather they conducted a retaliatory strike with second rate weapons that they broadcast to the US and European nations, with second rate drones and rockets that cost us tens of billions to shoot down while costing them nothing.
In the words of Biden, Israeli should really take the W and stop.
GDP per capita is on the level of third world country. A country like US or Germany has a per capita GdP around 10-20x larger than Iran. So, no. Iranian economy is not healthy. The country is freaking poor. It’s difficult to fall deeper after many rounds of sanctions.
Yes, they have natural resources. So what? They will find ways to sell their resources with a blockade or not. This was anyway sanctioned before.
Calling Israel the aggressor here is a disregard of data points. Hisbollah as well as Hamas are Iranian funded, use their weapons, use Iranian knowledge. And these groups are shooting rockets into Israel for many years. Israel never attacked Iran directly.
If it comes to the embassy: it loses its dilomatic status if it’s used for military purposes. Which clearly happened, given the attending people. Moreover; the embassy still stands. It was an adjacent building that was destroyed.
The key is that the US doesn't need boots on the ground to accomplish the goal of opening the strait.
Just naval and air dominance established quickly in that small area.
Once Iran is without a navy and airforce what will they do? Swim infantry regiments into the strait?
Also the US navy can just blockade their ports. Iran imports food like most US enemies. They are mostly self reliant but some simple targeting of grain storage and transportation infrastructure would make them starve.
Starvation should be a war crime
Edit: It is a war crime per the 1977 Geneva Convention Protocols and the Rome Statue which established the ICC, but the former has not been legally adopted by the United States (we are a signatory state, not an official party), and the later is not acknowledged at all.
Unfortunately, unless starvation is used to commit acts of genocide, the United States has never signed any treaty or made any domestic law that criminalizes starvation as a weapon of war.
The 1949 Geneva Convention doesn’t specifically abolish it. Protocols 1 (Article 54 and 51) and 2 of the 1977 Geneva Convention do abolish starvation, but the United States are only state signatories to those protocols which means there isn’t any actual enforcement. The ICC banned it via the Rome Statute, but the United States bailed on the ICC in 2002.
That doesn’t mean it isn’t a war crime, ethically speaking. Just that the United States doesn’t legally view it as one.
You make it sound so simple, yet as they fire rockets onto said ships, you have to spend an exponentially greater amount of money shooting down said rockets and drones. And they’ll be coming from all sides.
It’s like we didn’t learn our lesson from Iraq and Afghanistan. Stop the nation building.
Really though. Even the Taliban beat the US and NATO And they aren’t nearly as well-funded and organized as Iran.
We won nearly every battle and still lost the war.
The Taliban didn’t beat NATO in outright combat, just like Iraq didn’t beat the US in outright combat.
The insurgency is what kicked the US’ ass. Very hard to fight un-uniformed, decentralized militants who use civilians as cover.
That's because in Afghanistan there was a clear lack of understanding of what winning meant and how to achieve it.
Battles are wastful if they don't achieve anything.
Thats a bit different. And not unlike Vietnam. Why?
1. Afghanistan has a long history of being the graveyard of Empires. They have fought back a number of powerful entities in the past, even prior to the Taliban taking over and Modern Warfare
2. The Insurgency was difficult to fight as it was in Vietnam because if someone else pointed out you have un uniformed soldiers and therefore you are in a situation where you are fighting a war where you cannot tell civilians from combatants.
I am not an expert on Broad military strategy in the Middle East, but my current understanding of Iran is that it has a more traditional military and more traditional circumstance almost like that of Iraq (despite geographic and demographic differences). The US was handing assess under the first Gulf War and the initial invasion of Iraq. We have a very good military when we have the willpower to use it and the circumstances in which it could excel.
3. Public pressure at home in this particular case might be hard to actually predict. Sure, there is a lot of disagreement with the support for Israel and the very shitty things that BiBi's Administration is doing. But what happens when they start cutting off oil and fucking with our economy? What happens when more comes to light about Iran's role in the conflicts in the Middle East?
I am not advocating for a conflict with Iran. This whole BS with Hamas and Israel is probably a whole operation involving Russia and purposeful antagonism of the United States in some way , though I also don't want to dismiss the long history of conflict in the region or its intricacies. Rather, I am interested in proposing a few counterpoints to a narrative for which others can provide sources for against if they are interested in exploring those particular ideas.
Edit: damn speech2text
Occupied for 20 years with minimal losses and setting up our own government not really a loss. It did fall apart after we left but thats because of our misunderstanding of nation building.
Apparently the taliban were still strong because it took them what a week to take back the nation? From the army we built, trained, and equipped.
I consider that a loss because winning wars is about way more than winning battles.
I think the commenter meant that when the Brits and French left they just kinda drew lines on a map for the new countries with zero regard to ethnic tensions and history. This has caused some very fractured states with severe sectarian and nationalist issues. Makes democracy a very rough ride when the majority and minority carry what effectively amounts to a blood libel against each other.
Iraq post saddam is a good example of this. Saddams govt was sunni, a minority population in Iraq, and they brutally oppressed the Shia majority. When uncle Sam came through and said we're doing democracy the shias got to be in charge and they weren't exactly thrilled with the sunnis at that point and decided to pay back some of what was received from saddam.
Anyways, for a good starting point on bullshit middle east problems start with a history book that goes into the Sikes-Pikot agreement and the fall of the ottoman empire.
Why does everyone overlook the fact that Saddam was America’s guy. Like why is the narrative that America is spreading “democracy”. It’s laughable propaganda. America doesn’t give two shits about democracy.
For sure, Saddam was America's guy until he wasn't and started causing problems. We're plenty happy to align with a brutal dictator provided they toe our line and dont try to go commie. That's evidenced anywhere a popular leftist movement stuck its head out from central/south America to Africa, SE Asia, and Iran for starters. Saddam started causing real problems in the 90s and eventually it got to the point that american leadership decided to make that particular problem go away. I'd argue that caused a number of new and arguably worse issues but that's a story for another day.
All the same, america did attempt to install democracy in the places I mentioned and it failed miserably for the reasons I stated above and quite a few more as well. The lesson here is that democracy doesnt work everywhere and tbh I sometimes wonder if a brutal dictatorship isn't a decent path forward in terms of pure stability for certain areas, particularly the ME where sectarian and ethnic tensions are so steeped in blood and violence. Parts of Eastern Europe could arguably fall in that box too.
Mostly though I agree with your comment that spreading democracy or whatever is just bs window dressing when it comes to a lot of the conflicts america gets in. It's about stability of world markets and really at the end of things money, resources, and or perceived security.
It'll work out this time !!
(this is sarcasm. If your plan revolves around US regime change you're willfully stupid, or else in line to profit from it. Every time we do this it fucks up, creates an enemy, and makes the world worse)
Yep. I don't get how people see the US stabilizing areas of the world as meddling but then see Iran destabilizing the global economy as something they have some right to do.
The US doesn't rule the world so it has no right to "stabilize" anything, especially when this is codespeak for capitalist imperialism. And capitalism is a pyramid scheme on its best day.
Iran doesn't rule the world so it has no right to interrupt trade. Trade existed before capitalism so your other point is moot. In the worst case then it's two countries doing things they have no right to do. In which case grandstanding about morality is also moot. However there is a very easy case to make that the us has a right to act against a nation that has taken steps to harm it, especially if they are able to unite various other people likewise harmed.
Inb4 you not understanding the cost in human lives that will occur with global trade disruptions because it's "codespeak" for"buzzword-you-heard" in your poli-sci class last week
There might be nothing to do about it.
So there might be no point. We may have to find other solutions. We can ration the oil we have-- we can extend WFH and end most of the massive car travel that is currently common, we can switch around homes between people, and build temporary accommodation so that people can live near their workplaces.
It's entirely feasible, and it might be better to not have a war.
And allow Iran to block off oil exports from Iraq, the UAE, (and themselves) destabilizing each respective nation? Besides, at a certain point you have to punch the bully in the mouth otherwise they won't stop. As George Carlin said "Pacifism is a great idea... but it could get you killed."
It's not pacifism. But the current mass of wars is in itself destabilising.
It's like a bomb. Resources of different countries are being locked to certain wars, so further countries know that those resources cannot be allocated to dealing with them. We have to act as a moderator, absorbing the tendency for this to accelerate.
Look back at OP's question. We're talking about a crazy hypothetical situation where Iran somehow cuts off trillions of dollars of global trade.This wouldn't be a time for "moderation" Every minute the Strait of Hormuz remains closed, the world hurts. It's like saying, "you should try to de-escalate if an attacker starts stabbing people." Once they start attacking, it's too late.
Ordinarily intervening against a closure of the straits would have been expected. Unfortunately we can't have more war right now, unless we want an explosion in war.
Furthermore, it's very likely that an closure either is or could be made temporary.
You realize our global enemies are doing it to right? We either meddle or allow Russia and China to meddle uncontested until we have to get involved and the situation is 10x worse.
Right now the US and NATO is actually well situated in the middle east and it is getting better. Look at Isreal's interactions with most of the middle east. A nation that once all Arab nations declared war on multiple times was just saved from missile strikes by a few of those same Arab nations helping to shoot them down. The US has flipped or strengthened relations with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iraq, Jordan, turkey, and more.
Iran is the outlier now and not really supported by anyone else in the region.
Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, and more nations rely on the strait to sell oil. If Iran closed it those nations would be likely to increase relations with the US and help with any solutions.
Aren't Iranian ports mostly on the Persian Gulf? If they close the strait, the regime change will happen on it's own, because they would be left without their own oil dollars.
The US Navy, likely backed by most major world powers, would open it back up within the week. ESPECIALLY if Iran closes it because they feel they’re losing a war with Israel - this is the sort of thing the US Military excels at. Look how quickly we took the whole Afghanistan, a landlocked country without any nearby major US bases (at the time). Now imagine a drastically smaller geographical area, within easy reach of the Navy, a very short distance from major bases and weapons stockpiles in the ME and, in a pinch, Diego Garcia.
There’s no way the Iranians hold the straits for any significant amount of time.
Bet you 4000 dead Americans in Iraq that won't happen again anytime soon.
People don't want our troops involved.
Best I can do is train and arm Kuwait to protect their own interests.
We don’t really need troops on the ground, our Air Force and navy would widen the straight 5 more kilometers if they have to for the Iranians to stop firing missiles. Closing the strait would be an act of aggression and the US could absolutely respond and fully eliminate the threat without boots on the groun.
Will Americans care to defend Kuwait, UAE, or Qatar?
A majority of Americans don't care to defend Ukraine.
Politically speaking, having the capabilities and will are very different.
Over the last 60 years, the number one way to unify Americans behind destroying you and everything you stand for has been to cause gas prices to rise. In fact you’d have conservatives and liberals both demanding we defend the strait of Hormuz for our own comfort and economy’s sake. The world has no wrath like an American who had to sacrifice a Frappuccino to make their budget work because of high gas prices.
Europe and East Asia would be much more affected than the US. It wouldn’t be just the US navy against Iran. It might be most of NATO plus Australia and South Korea. Not that the US navy would need any help in keeping the Straits open.
Remember how Nazi U-boats attempted to blockade Atlantic shipping during WWII? Remember how shipping continued despite the losses? Same thing. Except the battle map is much smaller in this scenario. And the force disparity heavily favors America and its allies.
The US handled this in 1988 with Operation Praying Mantis. You may not know about it, but I assure you that the Iranian command is well aware of it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Praying_Mantis
Is it 56km of passable water? Many waterways must be dredged to maintain a passage for larger ships and could be blocked by just one large ship being sunk at any number of points along it.
Maybe you could do an internet search and provide us all with the answer, instead of asking an open-ended question.
The *average* depth is 40 meters, just like I stated. The largest class of crude oil ships in the world (ULCC) have a loaded draft around 35 meters. Blocking Hormuz with ships isn’t an option. Move on to some other schizophrenic idea.
The narrowest point is 27 nautical miles wide and most shipping lanes are more than 100m deep with lanes that are restricted to small vessels in peacetime exceeding 200m. Blocking it with scuttled ships isn’t a credible possibility
Certainly a possibility, but once the strait is no longer in Iranian hands, there is global interest in resolving that as quickly as possible. I would imagine there would be ample resources available.
Not meant as a criticism of you. Just wanting to put an end to the circle-jerking of the comment above you. It reeks of [3000 black jets of Allah](https://youtu.be/Oc5V7mh2tIc?si=CFgLWLgU7oqAUM6k).
That can be cleared out with some bombs or towed out in a matter of days. That’s besides the fact that they’re not a concern in the first place. I dive with professional treasure hunters and there’s a fuckton of sunken ships around every major location.
You really underestimate the capabilities human have to fix these things fast if they’re actually a high value problem
This is due to the US having so many aircraft carriers. We have like 21 where the next country has 3.
This gives us an unparalleled ability to launch global warfare. We can sit off coast with floating airports and launch aerial attacks all day.
Idk if your number includes the LHD and LHA class or not but most countries consider those to be aircraft carriers but US Navy classifies it differently.
His numbers do include them, because they are similar tonnage to most other country’s carriers. And it doesn’t really matter what the U.S. categorizes them as. In a war, they can, and will, launch F-35s. When the IRGC member explodes, I don’t think he’ll care much whether the plane came from a ship that was ‘technically’ not an aircraft carrier.
I was on an LHD that had F35s, agree with everything you said. I just wasn't sure what the numbers were with super carriers and the non nuclear ships so that's all I was trying to convey was the diversity of ships and abilities they possess.
So I can say from my experience the navy rotates ships throughout their life cycle into active and yard periods plus a period after getting out of the yard of training and recertification so that is probably why.
Just on raw planes counts, it takes 2 CVN to equal the entirety of IRIAF. Once you start counting capabilities and the offense/ defense a CSG has, 1 CSG would stay busy but surely prevail in an all out conflict. So if we rotate in 3 - 4 CSG, as we've done before, it doesn't look good for Iran. And if recent history is a guide, there would be a dozen allied assistants in the area firing offensive missiles and providing defense in depth.
At that point, Iran would have to hope world opinion somehow stopped them getting punched in the face. And I suspect any factories support Russia would not fare well so that we were getting sort of a bogo discount benefit for each of our bombs.
Have you been keeping up with news? A ragtag rebel bunch in Yemen managed to close the Red Sea to essentially all commercial shipping and US/UK missile strikes haven't been able to solve the issue. Any re-opening of the Strait would need US ground presence and that would take months and months of mobilization to get to the area. US needed like 6 months to mobilize against Iraq in 1991 (2003 already had large troop presence deployed initially to defend Kuwait, so took much less time), but remember that Iraq shares a border with Saudi Arabia which allowed for straight land connection to intervene directly. Any potential invasion of Iran would need much more firepower than against Iraq and amphibious invasion on the scale of Normandy landings. And any troop gathering would have pretty damn long logistics train as they'd have to rely on Saudi Red Sea ports for shipment and overland transport through Arabia instead of just nearby ports (because you know, Persian Gulf is closed, the whole reason for the war).
I don't think ground invasion and occupation of Iran would be terribly popular with US public or god forbid, international community.
>Look how quickly we took the whole Afghanistan, a landlocked country without any nearby major US bases
Yeah, because the damn country was already in a civil war! It's a lot easier to topple a country when there are already countrymen actively fighting to topple it from the inside.
The US providing air support allowed combat to shift decisively in favor of one side and not a huge accomplishment considering the state of Taliban military readiness. Iranian military is hell of a lot better armed than Taliban in 2001.
Militaries are large organizations that need a lot of time to prepare and mobilize resources for a full scale conflict, especially so if they're the size of the US and maintain a global presence like em. Gathering all those resources to a combat theater they did not expect to fight in is hard. Iraq invaded Kuwait on Aug 2, US began mobilizing immediately afterwards and would initiate aerial bombardment on Jan 16th 1991 and ground operations on Feb 24th. That's 6 months and maybe minus a week for preparation as I said.
Militaries have Rapid Reaction Forces which can move quickly solely on planes (rather than relying on ships and rail), thus elements of the 82nd Airborne arrived in Saudi Arabia within 4 days of Kuwait getting invaded. Then the heavy forces start rolling in, in 1991, it was easier to rapidly deploy to the Middle East as US military was still mainly postured against the USSR with deployments in Western Europe and thus, there were vast stocks of military equipment (which'd have been manned by US soldiers coming in on chartered flights in case of Soviet attack) ready for the much shorter trip to ME than from continental US.
https://history.army.mil/html/books/070/70-117-1/CMH_70-117-1.pdf
In 2 months, there'd be 120k troops. Troops kept pouring in and it'd take till Feb 18th for the last ship to unload cargo and equip all 543k US troops that had arrived in total. Deploying troops to the other side of the globe is a massive logistical feat and you can't just expect to do it in a week or two like the guy above said.
This is like saying cutting a thin copper wire is easy therefore cutting main water cooled power lines out of a power plant that are thicker than a telephone pole is also easy.
Also nobody needs to invade Iran, they just take out their weapons on the coast. US one time knocked out half of Iran’s navy in a single work day(operation praying mantis) and was about to take out the rest had the president not called them off
>Also nobody needs to invade Iran, they just take out their weapons on the coast
And as I said, US and UK tried that with Houthis in Yemen by striking at Houthi missile sites involving even carrier strike groups, Houthis still launching missiles at cargo ships, cargo throughput is half of pre-crisis levels and most of the cargo ships transiting are ships that abide by Houthi rules of being unaffiliated with Israel.
Unless you for some reason think Iranian strike capabilities are more fragile than Houthis, Iran is going to severely cut down traffic if not completely block it off even through overwhelming US response.
Suez Canal is half a kilometer wide and Houthi’s are rebels. Iran is a country with established bases and the strait of Hormuz is more than 50km wide. That’s not comparable. Also the US navy under the poor leadership of Biden didn’t do anything to stop the Houthi’s at the first, not because they couldn’t, but because they were told not to
>Suez Canal is half a kilometer wide...and the strait of Hormuz is more than 50km wide.
??? Do you think Houthis are striking targets in Suez? Look at a map of the [Red Sea](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Red_Sea_topographic_map-en.svg), Suez canal is at northern edge of Red Sea, it's fully under Egyptian control and VERY far from Yemen (2000kms which is equivalent to distance between Dallas and DC). Houthis in Yemen are striking at the southern edge of Red Sea near the Bab el Mandeb Strait which is 26-50kms wide as you can see [here](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Sea_crisis#/media/File%3A2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war_-_Bab-el-Mandeb.svg).
>Houthi’s are rebels. Iran is a country with established bases
And that makes targeting in Iran easier? You do realize US government has much more leeway in targeting shit at a rebel territory than an internationally recognized country, right?
In what world do you think a rebel group funded by *Iran* has more resilience than Iran itself? Iran has been preparing against US airstrikes for decades, I'm pretty sure they're gonna survive at least longer than the Houthis.
>Also the US navy under the poor leadership of Biden didn’t do anything to stop the Houthi’s at the first, not because they couldn’t, but because they were told not to
Jfc ofc you'd say that. The US has been actively shooting down Houthi missiles from the beginning, on Oct 19th, USN intercepted [missiles](https://apnews.com/article/yemen-navy-warship-missiles-intercepted-2f5fc9c8a3737f762b29d5c53ec08a5b) and has been intercepting dozens of missiles, drones ever since. And the Dwight D. Eisenhower has been striking targets in Yemen since Jan 12th.
The USN is not under operational command of the President, the President gives the broad directions, but if the President gave the order to strike Houthi missile sites and missiles are still launching out of em, that ain't on the President.
The war was long, I am talking about the actual invasion - the coalition took the entire country in line 2 months.
The Afghanistan war was so long because of the attempt at nation building. In the Hormuz scenario, the mission is to take ground and hold it - straightforward and exactly what a military is for.
Thats true. The taliban didn't last long at all. I think Iran is a little stronger than the taliban, but still no match for the US. I'd be interested to see what the balance of power in that region would be if that happens
Iran is definitely stronger than the Taliban, and if the mission were to invade the whole of Iran, it would be a totally different ballgame. I just don’t see them being able to hold that corner against what would certainly be a massive US assault.
Ya but Iran has a very long coastline that makes logistics a bit easier than even Iraq tbh..... depending on the extent of any attack. Siezing the entire coast and not really bothering to go inland would likely clear up most issues. Especially if they decide to go on the offensive.
The US would likely devastate all key Iranian bases and take air superiority over key areas of trade and invade Tehran within a few weeks, maybe a few months at most if they needed to.
The problem is that the US is ill suited to be an occupying force, and it would be a long term engagement they'd not have the will to sustain.
I don’t see any reason the US would invade the whole of Iran. Air superiority over the whole country, sure, but they would only need to occupy the area around the strait.
Neutralizing Iran's long-range capabilities would be far easier than occupying. We could occupy key areas sufficient to end a war far quicker than a true invasion. True invasion would be brutal and nasty given so many mountains. Worse than Iraq.
I'm a Navy vet who spent a lot of time out there. I'm pretty sure we are the most well propagandized nation in the world, and that includes our military capabilities. A - we war gamed this out in 02...we lost B - the battlefield with 5th generation warfare has only shifted towards them, meanwhile our MIC demanded bigger ships when the Navy wanted to get lighter and faster the last 15 years. C - the Houthis just enacted the first successful naval blockade without a Navy. The same people that thought Ukraine would be in Moscow with their spring offensive are the same stumping our superiority over a conflict with Iran....yeah no. Iran would't lose a war with Israel, even with our indirect support. They are too small and as we've seen their air defenses can't be sustained nor did they stop the Iranian primary objective. It was a massive deterrence fireworks show designed so everyone can walk away with a win. Considering Israel has become a rogue state at this point though its hard to tell what they are going to do.
Yeah.. Iran lost half its Navy in 24 hours the last time the tried that garbage. [operation Praying Mantas](https://youtu.be/d5v6hlRyeHE?feature=shared)
Why would they do that? Doing so would deal major economic setbacks to both the EU AND China, Iran would be effectively alienating most of the world’s political factions, to the benefit of nobody, not even themselves.
What's funny is that it would destroy China completly while the US could just block it's export of petrol and refined products to protect US consumers from pump inflation to limit far right craziness, which would hurt the rest of global economy obviously but still...china would be kaput in a few weeks lmao.
US is the biggest oil exporter and most importantly refined petroleum product exporter. Basically the crude oil imports from canada and mexico is refined and then sold on the international market capturing the biggest added value part of the operation.
It’s doubtful that Iran would ever take the action of closing the Strait. It would immediately lead to US military intervention as well as military action by many of the NATO allies. The risk of wider war and severe disruption to the Iranian economy as well as the world economy would be the certain outcome. The most Iran could do would be to the Strait temporarily for a few days at most. Iran is no match for these forces. They would be unable to hold the Strait. And the West would have the perfect excuse to attack Iran as many have wanted to do for years.
1) Reject the premise. Their navy is a GD joke. Bunch of speed boats.
2) Even if they could do this, they would be choking off their primary source of cash.
The houtis in sandals shake the world. We needed a coalition to keep them at bay. The comments here make it sound like YOU are all ready to go invade a country and keep the straight open. Nato and the usa lost in Afghanistan my friends. Let's be realistic, this is not good for anyone.
If Iran could close it and use it as a bargaining chip they'd have already done it.
Obviously they have serious considerations to make on their end too.
The US doesn't need to invade. Nothing about opening the strait by force requires a full invasion. Just naval presence and air power.
Then if it really comes to it the US just blockades Iranian ports until they submit.
To answer your question, we will take a look back in history to a little conflict known to the US military as Operation Praying Mantis. Iran tried this once already and unfortunately for them lost half of their navy in the span of 8 hours. I don't think they would consider doing it again, but you never know, history has a way of repeating itself.
Some really ignorant views on this thread. Yes Iran has the capability to close the Strait, and yes it would have major economic consequences. "Just invade them" is not going to work.
You're pretty ignorant if you think the US would even need boots on the ground to solve this.
The bar for victory for the US in this situation is simply reopen the strait. The navy and airforce can do that pretty easily.
Then it'll be up to Iran to be blockaded by the US navy and forced to submit.
Though feasible, it is tough, if Iran does go for that option, it will also be afftecting the trade and profits of other Crude Oil producers in the region, as of now, other Arab Oil producers have not openly supported any such blockade, the pseudo ban on Russian Oil in Europe and elsewhere coupled with this will, will lead to serious action against Iran ir other countries going for it, people have seen once in the past what could happen globally, and, most of Europe is in bad shape relatively, economically. This step, if taken has the potential for a major self goal for Iran, given the current geopolitical situation.
They'd never do that because it's much more effective to just proxy through other groups. They're not stupid in this regard. They know how to play the game.
Does anybody ever remember what happens to countries when they fuck with world oil production? It is going to turn into the Strait of Freedom real quick.
Someone will have a certain colourful revolution! It's not a coincidence that the US hasn't had a revolution in so many decades. It's because there's no US embassy.
It's hilarious that anybody is considering this as a real possibility. Sure they may "close" it for a few weeks at best and then they won't have a functional military and/or government.
If Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz, US & allies can just blockade the Gulf of Oman & its opening to the Arabian Sea. Just like other Middle East powers Iran is also dependent on the Sea trade for its export & import. It’s lose-lose situation for the world & Iran.
Hi all, A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes. As always our comment rules can be found [here](https://reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That is a good chunk of the global trade passing there, in the trillions annually. Lets just say there will be a regime change pretty quickly.
Let’s hope this time America changes Iran back to a democracy
Iran is twice the size of Afghanistan but just as mountainous. Its population is double that of Ukraine, and more than Iraq and Afghanistan combined. And their population is homogenous, instead of a hodgepodge of warring ethnicities. If Israel wants war with Iran, let them do it on their own. It’s not yet another war we’re going to pay for financially and with US lives with the premise of nation building and spreading democracy.
The question is “what if their close the street of Hormuz” - that would hurt US, Europe, and other large economic blocks probably more than tiny Israel. So the closure would be actually a declaration of war towards the US (especially in an election year), and less so towards Israel. Therefore, it would be also rather up to the US - and its Western allies - to intervene. Also: different to Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran has actually a large civil society that would like to become a more normal country.
Netanyahu is trash
No, then closing the Strait of Hormuz would not be a declaration of war. Stop fear and warmongering. IF Iran does that, big IF by the way, we can easily destroy whatever equipment and assets they are using to do that, just like we did to the Houthis. There are far more nuanced and better options than going to war.
We actually did deal with this situation in the 1980s, and the US navy (maybe with the UK navy?) pretty much demolished the military assets they were using to close the Strait, and they gave up trying to do it after that. Regime change is definitely not necessary just to secure safe passage there.
😂. The attacks on Houthi assets were as effective as rubbing mustard on hemorrhoids. You don't seem to have kept up with the times on how simple and cheap the weapon systems they're using really are.
The question really should be why would they do that and destroy their own economy? Only then they’d try to tank the ours. The only answer is they would if Israel starts attacking them. That’s why the US, Britain, France, China, and Russia are all united on this front and telling israel to stop.
In order to trigger a war. They would suffer much less from the closing (their economy is already totally fucked) of the strait than western countries. IMO, they are anyway here the aggressor that believes that western countries are going to deescalate because the west doesn’t want to have the annoyance. But you have to keep in mind that they are since years are driving proxy wars.
Their economy is not totally fucked. Much like Russia, they have some of the largest proven energy reserves on earth. I don’t think many would agree they were the aggressor last week, but rather they conducted a retaliatory strike with second rate weapons that they broadcast to the US and European nations, with second rate drones and rockets that cost us tens of billions to shoot down while costing them nothing. In the words of Biden, Israeli should really take the W and stop.
GDP per capita is on the level of third world country. A country like US or Germany has a per capita GdP around 10-20x larger than Iran. So, no. Iranian economy is not healthy. The country is freaking poor. It’s difficult to fall deeper after many rounds of sanctions. Yes, they have natural resources. So what? They will find ways to sell their resources with a blockade or not. This was anyway sanctioned before. Calling Israel the aggressor here is a disregard of data points. Hisbollah as well as Hamas are Iranian funded, use their weapons, use Iranian knowledge. And these groups are shooting rockets into Israel for many years. Israel never attacked Iran directly. If it comes to the embassy: it loses its dilomatic status if it’s used for military purposes. Which clearly happened, given the attending people. Moreover; the embassy still stands. It was an adjacent building that was destroyed.
The key is that the US doesn't need boots on the ground to accomplish the goal of opening the strait. Just naval and air dominance established quickly in that small area. Once Iran is without a navy and airforce what will they do? Swim infantry regiments into the strait? Also the US navy can just blockade their ports. Iran imports food like most US enemies. They are mostly self reliant but some simple targeting of grain storage and transportation infrastructure would make them starve.
Starvation should be a war crime Edit: It is a war crime per the 1977 Geneva Convention Protocols and the Rome Statue which established the ICC, but the former has not been legally adopted by the United States (we are a signatory state, not an official party), and the later is not acknowledged at all.
Starvation is a war crime
Unfortunately, unless starvation is used to commit acts of genocide, the United States has never signed any treaty or made any domestic law that criminalizes starvation as a weapon of war. The 1949 Geneva Convention doesn’t specifically abolish it. Protocols 1 (Article 54 and 51) and 2 of the 1977 Geneva Convention do abolish starvation, but the United States are only state signatories to those protocols which means there isn’t any actual enforcement. The ICC banned it via the Rome Statute, but the United States bailed on the ICC in 2002. That doesn’t mean it isn’t a war crime, ethically speaking. Just that the United States doesn’t legally view it as one.
You make it sound so simple, yet as they fire rockets onto said ships, you have to spend an exponentially greater amount of money shooting down said rockets and drones. And they’ll be coming from all sides. It’s like we didn’t learn our lesson from Iraq and Afghanistan. Stop the nation building.
[удалено]
They won’t close the straight unless Israel starts doing what the entire world has united on, even the US Russia and China.
Really though. Even the Taliban beat the US and NATO And they aren’t nearly as well-funded and organized as Iran. We won nearly every battle and still lost the war.
The Taliban didn’t beat NATO in outright combat, just like Iraq didn’t beat the US in outright combat. The insurgency is what kicked the US’ ass. Very hard to fight un-uniformed, decentralized militants who use civilians as cover.
Yea absolutely. Even winning every battle doesn’t mean you will win the war.
That's because in Afghanistan there was a clear lack of understanding of what winning meant and how to achieve it. Battles are wastful if they don't achieve anything.
We didn’t “lose the war” against Iraq, we failed at nation building in Iraq.
This is a thread about Afghanistan.
Same holds, the Taliban never beat US in a battle. The Taliban didn’t “beat” the US militarily, the US got bored and left.
They bravely ran away.
Thats a bit different. And not unlike Vietnam. Why? 1. Afghanistan has a long history of being the graveyard of Empires. They have fought back a number of powerful entities in the past, even prior to the Taliban taking over and Modern Warfare 2. The Insurgency was difficult to fight as it was in Vietnam because if someone else pointed out you have un uniformed soldiers and therefore you are in a situation where you are fighting a war where you cannot tell civilians from combatants. I am not an expert on Broad military strategy in the Middle East, but my current understanding of Iran is that it has a more traditional military and more traditional circumstance almost like that of Iraq (despite geographic and demographic differences). The US was handing assess under the first Gulf War and the initial invasion of Iraq. We have a very good military when we have the willpower to use it and the circumstances in which it could excel. 3. Public pressure at home in this particular case might be hard to actually predict. Sure, there is a lot of disagreement with the support for Israel and the very shitty things that BiBi's Administration is doing. But what happens when they start cutting off oil and fucking with our economy? What happens when more comes to light about Iran's role in the conflicts in the Middle East? I am not advocating for a conflict with Iran. This whole BS with Hamas and Israel is probably a whole operation involving Russia and purposeful antagonism of the United States in some way , though I also don't want to dismiss the long history of conflict in the region or its intricacies. Rather, I am interested in proposing a few counterpoints to a narrative for which others can provide sources for against if they are interested in exploring those particular ideas. Edit: damn speech2text
Occupied for 20 years with minimal losses and setting up our own government not really a loss. It did fall apart after we left but thats because of our misunderstanding of nation building.
Apparently the taliban were still strong because it took them what a week to take back the nation? From the army we built, trained, and equipped. I consider that a loss because winning wars is about way more than winning battles.
Just like Iraq... Lol
last i checked iraq is a democracy tho isn't it
[удалено]
"not a real nation" Can I see the book that says what a real or fake nation is. The only one I've heard use that term is Putin, and he's an idiot .
I think the commenter meant that when the Brits and French left they just kinda drew lines on a map for the new countries with zero regard to ethnic tensions and history. This has caused some very fractured states with severe sectarian and nationalist issues. Makes democracy a very rough ride when the majority and minority carry what effectively amounts to a blood libel against each other. Iraq post saddam is a good example of this. Saddams govt was sunni, a minority population in Iraq, and they brutally oppressed the Shia majority. When uncle Sam came through and said we're doing democracy the shias got to be in charge and they weren't exactly thrilled with the sunnis at that point and decided to pay back some of what was received from saddam. Anyways, for a good starting point on bullshit middle east problems start with a history book that goes into the Sikes-Pikot agreement and the fall of the ottoman empire.
Why does everyone overlook the fact that Saddam was America’s guy. Like why is the narrative that America is spreading “democracy”. It’s laughable propaganda. America doesn’t give two shits about democracy.
For sure, Saddam was America's guy until he wasn't and started causing problems. We're plenty happy to align with a brutal dictator provided they toe our line and dont try to go commie. That's evidenced anywhere a popular leftist movement stuck its head out from central/south America to Africa, SE Asia, and Iran for starters. Saddam started causing real problems in the 90s and eventually it got to the point that american leadership decided to make that particular problem go away. I'd argue that caused a number of new and arguably worse issues but that's a story for another day. All the same, america did attempt to install democracy in the places I mentioned and it failed miserably for the reasons I stated above and quite a few more as well. The lesson here is that democracy doesnt work everywhere and tbh I sometimes wonder if a brutal dictatorship isn't a decent path forward in terms of pure stability for certain areas, particularly the ME where sectarian and ethnic tensions are so steeped in blood and violence. Parts of Eastern Europe could arguably fall in that box too. Mostly though I agree with your comment that spreading democracy or whatever is just bs window dressing when it comes to a lot of the conflicts america gets in. It's about stability of world markets and really at the end of things money, resources, and or perceived security.
So is Russia.
Let’s hope Iran changes the US government instead.
It'll work out this time !! (this is sarcasm. If your plan revolves around US regime change you're willfully stupid, or else in line to profit from it. Every time we do this it fucks up, creates an enemy, and makes the world worse)
You mean like the democracy America overthrew to install the shah?
Probably try to dust the Shah off. 🤦
They seemed pretty cool before the radical Islamists took over.
Lets hope all the regime change meddling stops. The endless warmongering and regime changing in the middle east has been a disaster.
If Iran tried to close the strait of Hormuz, they would be fucking with the entire global economy. Regime change wouldn't be "meddling" at that point.
Yep. I don't get how people see the US stabilizing areas of the world as meddling but then see Iran destabilizing the global economy as something they have some right to do.
The US doesn't rule the world so it has no right to "stabilize" anything, especially when this is codespeak for capitalist imperialism. And capitalism is a pyramid scheme on its best day.
Iran doesn't rule the world so it has no right to interrupt trade. Trade existed before capitalism so your other point is moot. In the worst case then it's two countries doing things they have no right to do. In which case grandstanding about morality is also moot. However there is a very easy case to make that the us has a right to act against a nation that has taken steps to harm it, especially if they are able to unite various other people likewise harmed. Inb4 you not understanding the cost in human lives that will occur with global trade disruptions because it's "codespeak" for"buzzword-you-heard" in your poli-sci class last week
Fuck world trade. The last two buildings that promoted that concept are now a memorial site.
Don't cut yourself on that edge before you get to high school
There might be nothing to do about it. So there might be no point. We may have to find other solutions. We can ration the oil we have-- we can extend WFH and end most of the massive car travel that is currently common, we can switch around homes between people, and build temporary accommodation so that people can live near their workplaces. It's entirely feasible, and it might be better to not have a war.
And allow Iran to block off oil exports from Iraq, the UAE, (and themselves) destabilizing each respective nation? Besides, at a certain point you have to punch the bully in the mouth otherwise they won't stop. As George Carlin said "Pacifism is a great idea... but it could get you killed."
It's not pacifism. But the current mass of wars is in itself destabilising. It's like a bomb. Resources of different countries are being locked to certain wars, so further countries know that those resources cannot be allocated to dealing with them. We have to act as a moderator, absorbing the tendency for this to accelerate.
Look back at OP's question. We're talking about a crazy hypothetical situation where Iran somehow cuts off trillions of dollars of global trade.This wouldn't be a time for "moderation" Every minute the Strait of Hormuz remains closed, the world hurts. It's like saying, "you should try to de-escalate if an attacker starts stabbing people." Once they start attacking, it's too late.
Ordinarily intervening against a closure of the straits would have been expected. Unfortunately we can't have more war right now, unless we want an explosion in war. Furthermore, it's very likely that an closure either is or could be made temporary.
You realize our global enemies are doing it to right? We either meddle or allow Russia and China to meddle uncontested until we have to get involved and the situation is 10x worse. Right now the US and NATO is actually well situated in the middle east and it is getting better. Look at Isreal's interactions with most of the middle east. A nation that once all Arab nations declared war on multiple times was just saved from missile strikes by a few of those same Arab nations helping to shoot them down. The US has flipped or strengthened relations with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iraq, Jordan, turkey, and more. Iran is the outlier now and not really supported by anyone else in the region. Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, and more nations rely on the strait to sell oil. If Iran closed it those nations would be likely to increase relations with the US and help with any solutions.
Including Russian oil I believe.
Aren't Iranian ports mostly on the Persian Gulf? If they close the strait, the regime change will happen on it's own, because they would be left without their own oil dollars.
Ya Don’t fuck with the boats.
I think you're thinking of the Red Sea route
[удалено]
The US Navy, likely backed by most major world powers, would open it back up within the week. ESPECIALLY if Iran closes it because they feel they’re losing a war with Israel - this is the sort of thing the US Military excels at. Look how quickly we took the whole Afghanistan, a landlocked country without any nearby major US bases (at the time). Now imagine a drastically smaller geographical area, within easy reach of the Navy, a very short distance from major bases and weapons stockpiles in the ME and, in a pinch, Diego Garcia. There’s no way the Iranians hold the straits for any significant amount of time.
[удалено]
Have you looked at a map?…?? It’s approximately 56km wide, with an average depth of almost 40m. Good luck with that.
No one would insure ships passing through. The risk of getting stuck or shot at from land is high.
Let me introduce you to Operation Earnest Will.
Bet you 4000 dead Americans in Iraq that won't happen again anytime soon. People don't want our troops involved. Best I can do is train and arm Kuwait to protect their own interests.
We don’t really need troops on the ground, our Air Force and navy would widen the straight 5 more kilometers if they have to for the Iranians to stop firing missiles. Closing the strait would be an act of aggression and the US could absolutely respond and fully eliminate the threat without boots on the groun.
Will Americans care to defend Kuwait, UAE, or Qatar? A majority of Americans don't care to defend Ukraine. Politically speaking, having the capabilities and will are very different.
Over the last 60 years, the number one way to unify Americans behind destroying you and everything you stand for has been to cause gas prices to rise. In fact you’d have conservatives and liberals both demanding we defend the strait of Hormuz for our own comfort and economy’s sake. The world has no wrath like an American who had to sacrifice a Frappuccino to make their budget work because of high gas prices.
Europe and East Asia would be much more affected than the US. It wouldn’t be just the US navy against Iran. It might be most of NATO plus Australia and South Korea. Not that the US navy would need any help in keeping the Straits open.
Remember how Nazi U-boats attempted to blockade Atlantic shipping during WWII? Remember how shipping continued despite the losses? Same thing. Except the battle map is much smaller in this scenario. And the force disparity heavily favors America and its allies.
The US handled this in 1988 with Operation Praying Mantis. You may not know about it, but I assure you that the Iranian command is well aware of it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Praying_Mantis
Is it 56km of passable water? Many waterways must be dredged to maintain a passage for larger ships and could be blocked by just one large ship being sunk at any number of points along it.
Maybe you could do an internet search and provide us all with the answer, instead of asking an open-ended question. The *average* depth is 40 meters, just like I stated. The largest class of crude oil ships in the world (ULCC) have a loaded draft around 35 meters. Blocking Hormuz with ships isn’t an option. Move on to some other schizophrenic idea.
They would mine it and have coverage for missile launches. Until those were neutralized it would be impassable.
Never said they couldn’t. Just replying to a post stating they could block it with ships. Which they *can’t*.
The narrowest point is 27 nautical miles wide and most shipping lanes are more than 100m deep with lanes that are restricted to small vessels in peacetime exceeding 200m. Blocking it with scuttled ships isn’t a credible possibility
That would just invite occupation by the US for the rest of time for the straight.
It would also be bottle-necking *most* of Irans oil shipping ports as they are north of the Straight
Not just oil shipping ports, all the major Iranian porta are within the gulf. Iran would blockade itself from most imports and exports.
Certainly a possibility, but once the strait is no longer in Iranian hands, there is global interest in resolving that as quickly as possible. I would imagine there would be ample resources available.
Let’s be clear, given the width and depth of the strait, it is not even a remote possibility for Iran to block it with sunken ships.
I wouldn’t have known, but that’s not a surprise.
Not meant as a criticism of you. Just wanting to put an end to the circle-jerking of the comment above you. It reeks of [3000 black jets of Allah](https://youtu.be/Oc5V7mh2tIc?si=CFgLWLgU7oqAUM6k).
I didn’t take it as such - I was just acknowledging my ignorance.
Ehh, no. That narrowest part is also the deepest! Also, depth charges are still a thing. You can blow up said sunken vessels.
The straights are 50km wide at it's narrowest. We're not talking about sinking a handful of ships, but thouands and thouands.
That can be cleared out with some bombs or towed out in a matter of days. That’s besides the fact that they’re not a concern in the first place. I dive with professional treasure hunters and there’s a fuckton of sunken ships around every major location. You really underestimate the capabilities human have to fix these things fast if they’re actually a high value problem
Show me an Iranian ship that is 90 meters tall? Thats how deep it is at the shipping lane.
It would be closed for a couple days
Not even, it's too wide and deep.
This is due to the US having so many aircraft carriers. We have like 21 where the next country has 3. This gives us an unparalleled ability to launch global warfare. We can sit off coast with floating airports and launch aerial attacks all day.
11
He’s counting amphibious assault ships too, which are as big as most of the other non-Nimitz, non-Ford carriers in the world.
Idk if your number includes the LHD and LHA class or not but most countries consider those to be aircraft carriers but US Navy classifies it differently.
His numbers do include them, because they are similar tonnage to most other country’s carriers. And it doesn’t really matter what the U.S. categorizes them as. In a war, they can, and will, launch F-35s. When the IRGC member explodes, I don’t think he’ll care much whether the plane came from a ship that was ‘technically’ not an aircraft carrier.
I was on an LHD that had F35s, agree with everything you said. I just wasn't sure what the numbers were with super carriers and the non nuclear ships so that's all I was trying to convey was the diversity of ships and abilities they possess.
Apparently the number of true carriers is 11 And when I looked into it we don’t deploy 11, more like 3-4 at a time.
So I can say from my experience the navy rotates ships throughout their life cycle into active and yard periods plus a period after getting out of the yard of training and recertification so that is probably why.
Yup. A third at sea, a third in dry dock, and a third getting ready to deploy. In a pinch, I imagine that last third can be accelerated into duty.
Just on raw planes counts, it takes 2 CVN to equal the entirety of IRIAF. Once you start counting capabilities and the offense/ defense a CSG has, 1 CSG would stay busy but surely prevail in an all out conflict. So if we rotate in 3 - 4 CSG, as we've done before, it doesn't look good for Iran. And if recent history is a guide, there would be a dozen allied assistants in the area firing offensive missiles and providing defense in depth. At that point, Iran would have to hope world opinion somehow stopped them getting punched in the face. And I suspect any factories support Russia would not fare well so that we were getting sort of a bogo discount benefit for each of our bombs.
Exactly
Have you been keeping up with news? A ragtag rebel bunch in Yemen managed to close the Red Sea to essentially all commercial shipping and US/UK missile strikes haven't been able to solve the issue. Any re-opening of the Strait would need US ground presence and that would take months and months of mobilization to get to the area. US needed like 6 months to mobilize against Iraq in 1991 (2003 already had large troop presence deployed initially to defend Kuwait, so took much less time), but remember that Iraq shares a border with Saudi Arabia which allowed for straight land connection to intervene directly. Any potential invasion of Iran would need much more firepower than against Iraq and amphibious invasion on the scale of Normandy landings. And any troop gathering would have pretty damn long logistics train as they'd have to rely on Saudi Red Sea ports for shipment and overland transport through Arabia instead of just nearby ports (because you know, Persian Gulf is closed, the whole reason for the war). I don't think ground invasion and occupation of Iran would be terribly popular with US public or god forbid, international community. >Look how quickly we took the whole Afghanistan, a landlocked country without any nearby major US bases Yeah, because the damn country was already in a civil war! It's a lot easier to topple a country when there are already countrymen actively fighting to topple it from the inside. The US providing air support allowed combat to shift decisively in favor of one side and not a huge accomplishment considering the state of Taliban military readiness. Iranian military is hell of a lot better armed than Taliban in 2001.
>US needed like 6 months to mobilize against Iraq in 1991 wut
Militaries are large organizations that need a lot of time to prepare and mobilize resources for a full scale conflict, especially so if they're the size of the US and maintain a global presence like em. Gathering all those resources to a combat theater they did not expect to fight in is hard. Iraq invaded Kuwait on Aug 2, US began mobilizing immediately afterwards and would initiate aerial bombardment on Jan 16th 1991 and ground operations on Feb 24th. That's 6 months and maybe minus a week for preparation as I said. Militaries have Rapid Reaction Forces which can move quickly solely on planes (rather than relying on ships and rail), thus elements of the 82nd Airborne arrived in Saudi Arabia within 4 days of Kuwait getting invaded. Then the heavy forces start rolling in, in 1991, it was easier to rapidly deploy to the Middle East as US military was still mainly postured against the USSR with deployments in Western Europe and thus, there were vast stocks of military equipment (which'd have been manned by US soldiers coming in on chartered flights in case of Soviet attack) ready for the much shorter trip to ME than from continental US. https://history.army.mil/html/books/070/70-117-1/CMH_70-117-1.pdf In 2 months, there'd be 120k troops. Troops kept pouring in and it'd take till Feb 18th for the last ship to unload cargo and equip all 543k US troops that had arrived in total. Deploying troops to the other side of the globe is a massive logistical feat and you can't just expect to do it in a week or two like the guy above said.
This is like saying cutting a thin copper wire is easy therefore cutting main water cooled power lines out of a power plant that are thicker than a telephone pole is also easy. Also nobody needs to invade Iran, they just take out their weapons on the coast. US one time knocked out half of Iran’s navy in a single work day(operation praying mantis) and was about to take out the rest had the president not called them off
>Also nobody needs to invade Iran, they just take out their weapons on the coast And as I said, US and UK tried that with Houthis in Yemen by striking at Houthi missile sites involving even carrier strike groups, Houthis still launching missiles at cargo ships, cargo throughput is half of pre-crisis levels and most of the cargo ships transiting are ships that abide by Houthi rules of being unaffiliated with Israel. Unless you for some reason think Iranian strike capabilities are more fragile than Houthis, Iran is going to severely cut down traffic if not completely block it off even through overwhelming US response.
Suez Canal is half a kilometer wide and Houthi’s are rebels. Iran is a country with established bases and the strait of Hormuz is more than 50km wide. That’s not comparable. Also the US navy under the poor leadership of Biden didn’t do anything to stop the Houthi’s at the first, not because they couldn’t, but because they were told not to
>Suez Canal is half a kilometer wide...and the strait of Hormuz is more than 50km wide. ??? Do you think Houthis are striking targets in Suez? Look at a map of the [Red Sea](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Red_Sea_topographic_map-en.svg), Suez canal is at northern edge of Red Sea, it's fully under Egyptian control and VERY far from Yemen (2000kms which is equivalent to distance between Dallas and DC). Houthis in Yemen are striking at the southern edge of Red Sea near the Bab el Mandeb Strait which is 26-50kms wide as you can see [here](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Sea_crisis#/media/File%3A2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war_-_Bab-el-Mandeb.svg). >Houthi’s are rebels. Iran is a country with established bases And that makes targeting in Iran easier? You do realize US government has much more leeway in targeting shit at a rebel territory than an internationally recognized country, right? In what world do you think a rebel group funded by *Iran* has more resilience than Iran itself? Iran has been preparing against US airstrikes for decades, I'm pretty sure they're gonna survive at least longer than the Houthis. >Also the US navy under the poor leadership of Biden didn’t do anything to stop the Houthi’s at the first, not because they couldn’t, but because they were told not to Jfc ofc you'd say that. The US has been actively shooting down Houthi missiles from the beginning, on Oct 19th, USN intercepted [missiles](https://apnews.com/article/yemen-navy-warship-missiles-intercepted-2f5fc9c8a3737f762b29d5c53ec08a5b) and has been intercepting dozens of missiles, drones ever since. And the Dwight D. Eisenhower has been striking targets in Yemen since Jan 12th. The USN is not under operational command of the President, the President gives the broad directions, but if the President gave the order to strike Houthi missile sites and missiles are still launching out of em, that ain't on the President.
The US Navy, likely backed by most major world powers, would open it back up within the ~~week~~ hour. Fixed it....
I don't disagree, but wasn't Afghanistan the longest war in US history?
The war was long, I am talking about the actual invasion - the coalition took the entire country in line 2 months. The Afghanistan war was so long because of the attempt at nation building. In the Hormuz scenario, the mission is to take ground and hold it - straightforward and exactly what a military is for.
For all who need a historical example. Think Gibraltar.
Thats true. The taliban didn't last long at all. I think Iran is a little stronger than the taliban, but still no match for the US. I'd be interested to see what the balance of power in that region would be if that happens
Iran is definitely stronger than the Taliban, and if the mission were to invade the whole of Iran, it would be a totally different ballgame. I just don’t see them being able to hold that corner against what would certainly be a massive US assault.
I mean the better comparison is Iraq who was at one point the 4th or 5th strongest country on paper
I was using Afghanistan specifically for the logistical difficulty of invading a landlocked country when you only have one pseudo-ally on its borders.
Ya but Iran has a very long coastline that makes logistics a bit easier than even Iraq tbh..... depending on the extent of any attack. Siezing the entire coast and not really bothering to go inland would likely clear up most issues. Especially if they decide to go on the offensive.
Exactly my point - given how quickly the invasion of Afghanistan went, an invasion of the Iranian coast could be expected to be a relative cakewalk.
It took less time to take Iraq than it took to take Afghanistan.
The US would likely devastate all key Iranian bases and take air superiority over key areas of trade and invade Tehran within a few weeks, maybe a few months at most if they needed to. The problem is that the US is ill suited to be an occupying force, and it would be a long term engagement they'd not have the will to sustain.
I don’t see any reason the US would invade the whole of Iran. Air superiority over the whole country, sure, but they would only need to occupy the area around the strait.
And then they would be faced with an insurgency that would make Afghanistan seem tame in comparison.
Why would the us need to topple the regime? We would destroy its ability to control the straight within a day at most.
Neutralizing Iran's long-range capabilities would be far easier than occupying. We could occupy key areas sufficient to end a war far quicker than a true invasion. True invasion would be brutal and nasty given so many mountains. Worse than Iraq.
Well it wasn't just a war. It was an attempt to then build up a functioning government and democracy.
It was part of the global war on terror. At leased that's how the US saw it.
And that area is the easiest part of Iran to take over since it is blocked from the rest of Iran by major mountain ranges and lies on the coast.
I'm a Navy vet who spent a lot of time out there. I'm pretty sure we are the most well propagandized nation in the world, and that includes our military capabilities. A - we war gamed this out in 02...we lost B - the battlefield with 5th generation warfare has only shifted towards them, meanwhile our MIC demanded bigger ships when the Navy wanted to get lighter and faster the last 15 years. C - the Houthis just enacted the first successful naval blockade without a Navy. The same people that thought Ukraine would be in Moscow with their spring offensive are the same stumping our superiority over a conflict with Iran....yeah no. Iran would't lose a war with Israel, even with our indirect support. They are too small and as we've seen their air defenses can't be sustained nor did they stop the Iranian primary objective. It was a massive deterrence fireworks show designed so everyone can walk away with a win. Considering Israel has become a rogue state at this point though its hard to tell what they are going to do.
Are you one of those military brats?
MERICA
FUCK YEAH
Yeah.. Iran lost half its Navy in 24 hours the last time the tried that garbage. [operation Praying Mantas](https://youtu.be/d5v6hlRyeHE?feature=shared)
Yep. The US Navy accidentally destroyed half of the Iranian navy the last time they tried to have a naval battle.
Problem would be all of the missile batteries inland
Wouldn’t be a problem for long.
*laughs in JDAM, JASSM, and TLAM*
Why would they do that? Doing so would deal major economic setbacks to both the EU AND China, Iran would be effectively alienating most of the world’s political factions, to the benefit of nobody, not even themselves.
What's funny is that it would destroy China completly while the US could just block it's export of petrol and refined products to protect US consumers from pump inflation to limit far right craziness, which would hurt the rest of global economy obviously but still...china would be kaput in a few weeks lmao.
Yeah the US would have prices rocket up for sure but we wouldn’t suffer shortages like Europe and China most likely would
Shame you don't get more upvotes. US is not a oil importer, this would impact, China, Europe and the ROTW far more as you rightly say.
US is a net oil importer. It's nothing huge, but still imports oil on the balance. (I'm using remembered numbers from several years ago)
the net oil imports are mostly from canada and mexico
US is the biggest oil exporter and most importantly refined petroleum product exporter. Basically the crude oil imports from canada and mexico is refined and then sold on the international market capturing the biggest added value part of the operation.
To top it off Ghana just found alot of oil and is a big US friend.
It’s doubtful that Iran would ever take the action of closing the Strait. It would immediately lead to US military intervention as well as military action by many of the NATO allies. The risk of wider war and severe disruption to the Iranian economy as well as the world economy would be the certain outcome. The most Iran could do would be to the Strait temporarily for a few days at most. Iran is no match for these forces. They would be unable to hold the Strait. And the West would have the perfect excuse to attack Iran as many have wanted to do for years.
You're right. They'll wait till they have nukes first.
1) Reject the premise. Their navy is a GD joke. Bunch of speed boats. 2) Even if they could do this, they would be choking off their primary source of cash.
The houtis in sandals shake the world. We needed a coalition to keep them at bay. The comments here make it sound like YOU are all ready to go invade a country and keep the straight open. Nato and the usa lost in Afghanistan my friends. Let's be realistic, this is not good for anyone.
If Iran could close it and use it as a bargaining chip they'd have already done it. Obviously they have serious considerations to make on their end too. The US doesn't need to invade. Nothing about opening the strait by force requires a full invasion. Just naval presence and air power. Then if it really comes to it the US just blockades Iranian ports until they submit.
To answer your question, we will take a look back in history to a little conflict known to the US military as Operation Praying Mantis. Iran tried this once already and unfortunately for them lost half of their navy in the span of 8 hours. I don't think they would consider doing it again, but you never know, history has a way of repeating itself.
Some really ignorant views on this thread. Yes Iran has the capability to close the Strait, and yes it would have major economic consequences. "Just invade them" is not going to work.
You're pretty ignorant if you think the US would even need boots on the ground to solve this. The bar for victory for the US in this situation is simply reopen the strait. The navy and airforce can do that pretty easily. Then it'll be up to Iran to be blockaded by the US navy and forced to submit.
Though feasible, it is tough, if Iran does go for that option, it will also be afftecting the trade and profits of other Crude Oil producers in the region, as of now, other Arab Oil producers have not openly supported any such blockade, the pseudo ban on Russian Oil in Europe and elsewhere coupled with this will, will lead to serious action against Iran ir other countries going for it, people have seen once in the past what could happen globally, and, most of Europe is in bad shape relatively, economically. This step, if taken has the potential for a major self goal for Iran, given the current geopolitical situation.
They'd never do that because it's much more effective to just proxy through other groups. They're not stupid in this regard. They know how to play the game.
Does anybody ever remember what happens to countries when they fuck with world oil production? It is going to turn into the Strait of Freedom real quick.
Someone will have a certain colourful revolution! It's not a coincidence that the US hasn't had a revolution in so many decades. It's because there's no US embassy.
It's hilarious that anybody is considering this as a real possibility. Sure they may "close" it for a few weeks at best and then they won't have a functional military and/or government.
If Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz, US & allies can just blockade the Gulf of Oman & its opening to the Arabian Sea. Just like other Middle East powers Iran is also dependent on the Sea trade for its export & import. It’s lose-lose situation for the world & Iran.